Midway Residents Want In
Decatur Metro | May 30, 2009 | 8:54 pmAn interesting development indeed…
Amongst the supporting documents for Monday’s city commission meeting is a letter from Midway Road residents who, despite the failed annexation effort earlier this year, want in to the city. The block of 11 households in question sit immediately adjacent to the current city limits and therefore can request annexation from the city of Decatur.
The letter from residents, which is on page 11-12 in the materials section for the June 1st meeting, states that they have between 72%-78% support for annexation, which exceeds the 60% threshold necessary to make the request.
Needless to say this should be very interesting for a couple reasons. First, despite what some have said, the annexation effort failed due to a lack of adequate data that demonstrated the school system could handle the increase AND unanswered questions about whether the city could make money off the effort.
Therefore, an 11 household residential annexation puts our city commissioners in an interesting position. Up until now, they’ve been pretty willing to accept individual applications for annexation, however this one may just be large enough to get the old opposition riled up again.
Interestingly enough, the letter to the commission does address the dreaded “school age children” question under the “No Undue Burden on the CSD or City of Decatur Services” section… “There are only 6 children (2 of which currently/plan to attend the Waldorf School) in the annexation area; 5 of the 6 children are 5 or younger.” Unfortunately, that statement kind of misses the major point of concern for current residents who aren’t as worried about the current school-aged population as what it would become once the property was included within the city limits.
How will the commission respond? Where do your candidates for city commission stand on this?
Ready or not, the hornet’s nest has been kicked.
Related Posts:
-
June 16, 2009 Midway Annexation Passes (59)
-
December 4, 2008 Superintendent Opposes Annexation (0)
-
January 16, 2008 Approval of Annexation a Done Deal? A First Hand Account… (0)
This issue caused a huge brew-ha-ha on the Midway Woods yahoo group a few weeks ago. It will be interesting to see what happens.
If these folks want in, then we should let them in. This is a small annexation we are talking about, and these are people who likely already enjoy many of the things that being a Decatur resident offers–i.e. our great events downtown, high property values.
In my mind, a major factor to consider in deciding whether to annex is whether the annex-ees want to be annexed in the first place. When you’ve got a small group of people like this who are truly anxious to be part of the city, and willing to pay our taxes, etc., it seems that we should welcome them. The burden on our schools of this small annexation would be minimal and manageable. And there’s no reason to think that something like this would “open the floodgates” to additional annexations. We can look at these things on a case-by-case basis and just their individual merits.
The Commission needs to consider this along with the impact of the seemingly large subdivision that is already going up within the Decatur city limits further west on Midway. How many houses is that? It looks like at least a dozen.
I’m actually for this annexation… I’ll share why after the City votes on it.
It is approved for 28 homes and 3 acres of preserved green space. The investor/owner has torn down the (approved, I hope) trees and readying the lots, but I can’t image him building homes and/or selling to a developer to build homes anytime in the near future. I am hoping that the city is keeping a close eye on the earth-moving going on there to make sure that they are sticking to the numerous restrictions regarding the land plan that the neighbors worked so hard to get the owner/builder to agree to. From what I understand, the builder that negotiated with the neighbors is no longer in the picture and it’s just the investor doing this on his own.
The residents that abut that property where 28 new homes are going in are on top of it and making sure that the City is paying attention. I should know, I am one of the neighbors…..
That’s a great point, GAK, and I hope you are right Bob!
I don’t understand this annexation business. I am a Decatur resident because I bought within the City of Decatur limits – a much higher price point than adjoining communities. If these homeowners wanted to be in the city so badly, then why didn’t these homeowners do the same? Why should they get an instant boost on the value of their home? I paid for that premium, shouldn’t they?
Seriously? This is your objection? If so, you should know that of the 11 houses in question, several were over half a million in cost. I am guessing their premium was as high, if not higher, than yours. These are people who paid a large sum of money for a house and are now willing to pay over double in taxes to join the City. Perhaps you should reconsider your argument.
The real problem is opening a can of worms that can’t be closed. And frankly, what someone pays for their house doesn’t make them more worthy.
The real point is first these 11, then 6 over here, and 12 over there, and all of a sudden the best laid plans of mice and men and high paid consultants go all to hell. Annexation should be a thoughtful process, not something that happens because someone wants in and is organized. I would be for the city commissioning a new study with a new company on various options for annexing. I am so torn… I’d rather we spend some money to make the right decision in a thoughtful, careful way.
Thanks for the post, DM. Interesting it is. The city has said that it wants to increase the ratio of commercial to residential properties, and that it would only consider an annexation if it proved to benefit the Decatur tax payer. This annexation obviously wouldn’t do the former, and we can tentatively begin to get a handle on whether it would do the latter … at least on the school side of the tax bill.
According to the application, there are currently six children that could enter the City Schools of Decatur. A decent chance that number would grow if the properties are annexed, but let’s stick with six for now. Local share per pupil is $9300 annually. Using DeKalb Tax records of the current assessed values of the residences, together with the tax calculator on the City’s website: a quick calculation says that, in order for CSD to avoid a loss on this annexation, the total property value would have to increase by 71%.
Now, I think these expenses would have to be considered a minimum, since it’s possible that adding a child or two in a given grade may require a new classroom, in which case the price tag would go way up. And, of course, the number of children may also go up in coming years.
Add to this the fact that Winnona Park Elementary is the most over-crowded of the K-3 schools. It’s already beyond capacity and using trailers.
It will be interesting to see if the City Commission asks CSD to weigh in on this annexation proposal, as they did on the big one late last year. The financial hit obviously isn’t as dramatic in this case, but it’s still material. It’s certainly the case the city won’t know the potential impact on the Decatur tax-payer without an evaluation from CSD.
Is Winonna Park at capacity because there are too many residents or is at capacity because City Schools of Decatur allows non-residents to pay tuition to get in and WP is very often the school that takes them?
I sincerely doubt that 6 children will really affect the tax base that much, or that CSD will lose money if these 11 homes are annexed.
The Midway Woods neighborhood association has conducted a study of the impact of annexation if the larger community is annexed. The current president of the Association is a tax accountant and has provided tools for an in depth study of the tax impact to the residents. I am sure he could help assess the impact on CSD if interested.
CSD is not allowing any tuition children into kindergarten this year. My understanding is that, in fact, none are being allowed into K-5 at all. All of the K-3 schools are packed to the gills and all will have children in trailers – and Glennwood will have most of 5th grade in trailers.
I have no problem with numbers based arguments when dealing with issues like the large-scale annexations proposed a little while ago. These scenarios, because of their size, carry with them a lot of uncertainty and considerable potential outcomes in terms of impact — from beneficial to relatively benign to financially catastrophic. No argument they need to be explored and debated extensively.
That said, am I the only one who finds it a little creepy when this same type of technocratic analysis is applied at the level of a single home or small collection of homes? Seriously, are these folks nothing more than dollar signs on a balance sheet? I thought they were neighbors who wanted to invest in and make a commitment to our city.
Once we start deciding whether or not specific individuals (that we more than likely know personally) can join our community on the basis of their financial impact alone, I fear we’ll be well on our way to losing or degrading many things that make Decatur desirable to begin with.
Sorry to creep you out, Scott, but as you know there have been several of these applications in the last few years, and believe it or not the numbers do add up. The main point of my post is that the City should let CSD weigh in the impact they anticipate on their resources, since CSD is what these annexation applications are really about and that’s where the material impact will be. Especially when they’re up to their eyeballs with enrollment projections, reconfiguration, dwindling state resources. Speaking of what makes Decatur desirable to begin with …
Fortunately, I did not challenge the idea that CSD should be party to these decisions. I challenged the basis on which all participating decision makers should be drawing their conclusions when dealing at the micro level.
Yes, a perfectly rational argument can be made for putting price tags on people’s heads. But once we start doing that, what’s to stop residents who don’t have kids from casting an equally suspicious eye towards residents like me — or you — who do? We’re costing them money.
That’s my point, which is really unrelated to whether or not CSD in involved in the process. I support that.
In that case, I think we agree. (Bearing in mind that this is, by my parcel count, the 23rd micro-level decision in the last three years.)
I agree with Scott here. While numerous small annexations over time may indeed “add up,” each small annexation proposal should be judged on its individual merits. If an individual proposal doesn’t make economic sense in light of the whole as it exists at the time, then such proposal could be rejected. So, if the city reaches a point where past annexations have “added up” to a point where we need to put a hold on things, we have that option.
The key is to not to look at “Annexation” as an all-or-nothing game or something that has to be accepted or rejected whole-cloth on some ideological basis. If a small group of homeowners are truly motivated to be part of the city–and to accept the tax burden, etc. that comes along with it–then we should not discourage them. Unless, that is, a persuasive case can be made that the proposal would harm the city in some way, financially or otherwise.
It seems that incremental, case-by-case annexation is the wisest and most responsible approach to the issue. As a city commissioner, I would encourage such a process. It benefits everyone to move incrementally.
I would really hope that as a city commissioner, you would NOT approach urban planning in a piecemeal fashion.
This statement in particular concerns me:
‘If an individual proposal doesn’t make economic sense in light of the whole as it exists at the time, then such proposal could be rejected. So, if the city reaches a point where past annexations have “added up” to a point where we need to put a hold on things, we have that option.’
This is a formula for an absolute mess. Annexation on a case by case basis without a comprehensive strategy? That scares the hell out of me.
I guess you will not be endorsing Radford’s campaign, huh, Nelliebelle?
Really though, “Vote Radford, he supports piecemeal solutions to our city’s problems” is not the best campaign slogan going foward, I don’t think.
I guess not anymore
But you know, at least that would be an HONEST slogan.
Guys, I certainly don’t mean to suggest that I would take a piecemill approach to all of Decatur’s issues. But there is a time and a place for “case-by-case” decisionmaking. Obviously, a solid foundation of comprehensive planning is necessary for sustainable city growth. But there are times when unplanned contingencies arise, and the question becomes, do we have to change the whole plan, or can we adapt the plan to this new circumstance? If adapting to the unplanned contingency will not undermine the value of the whole, we should consider it! This appears to be such a situation.
I guess this is what DM meant when he referred to the “hornet’s nest!”
Although it is difficult not to consider the people involved in any annexation, it is the property that is being annexed not the residents per se. From a governance perspective it will be interesting to see how our commissioners evaluate the economic realities. I’m sure they will be considered, if not openly then where? And if we are to measure things other than economics how will we value them if not with some financial backdrop.
It is certainly nice to see some consesus forming (here at DM) around the formality of City and School review of these opportunities. Won’t we all be better served when the question is not wether we should consider all the impacts but rather what the impacts really are?
Certainly agreed, Pat, but if the question is really just about property detached from residents, we shouldn’t be counting specific school aged kids and smaller children either.
I’m all about considering financial impacts, but this is ultimately about people. That means also considering the value of their potential non-financial contributions to the quality of our city. And as anyone who’s lived in Decatur for a while knows, those contributions very often come in the form of ideas, leadership, and muscle.
I strongly support developing a big-picture annexation strategy to serve as a guide, the close involvement of the school system, and an honest appraisal of pluses and minuses. All I’m suggesting is that when one criteria becomes the sole criteria (especially when that criteria is money), the overall value of community suffers.
I’m having a bit of trouble wrapping my head around this argument Scott.
So, are you saying that there IS a point where the financials outway the intangibles and we’re not just there yet?
And how does one ever judge the intangibles when deciding something annexation? To me, they are incalculable and even often unidentifiable.
How does your argument ever allow a city to stop growing? Or is it an organic growth argument?
Dang. I guess clarity is not my strong suit.
Either way, if you’re saying that it makes total sense to you to treat large, arbitrary tracts of zoned land and small collections of individual human beings the same way, then I don’t think my argument is going to hold much water.
However, in the event you are able to see the vast differences in these two scenarios, I’ll reiterate one last time: One family, in one house, at this moment in time, should not be viewed solely in terms of financial benefit or loss. Those impacts should be considered, of course, but so should the sense of whether or not Decatur is better off with the addition of new, motivated, enthusiastic, passionate people. Suggesting that balance sheet impacts are the *only* reliable measure of individual folks is flat out wrong in my opinion. I don’t know how much clearer I can be.
Are you suggesting that just because human worth is complicated it should be discounted? In my experience, Decatur is better than that.
Hey, Scott. 23 parcels annexed in last three years (and I might be missing some). Is this a part of a conscious plan for the city or not? Is all that we can say in defense is that these are human beings and therefore shouldn’t be judged in dollars and cents? That suggests to me that you can’t articulate a plausible plan of which these annexations are a part. Unless we can do that, why not concede DM’s point (though I suspect I’m going beyond DM’s point … sorry, DM)? Besides, I don’t see that anyone here has said what you’re trying to argue against.
And you imply the large scale annexation areas were arbitrary? No plan there either? Here, I disagree. I don’t think those areas were arbitrary at all. It’s a map worth studying.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, Scott, so scratch that last comment. Late night afterthought.
I could be entirely wrong, but I think the city commission is going to be a little more than a bit wary about this proposal.
They’re the ones that forced the large scale annexation issue in the first place, purely because of budget concerns, when no one was putting political pressure on the commission to do so. For all the liberal flak Decatur takes, we can be pretty fiscally conservative. Yes, we spend a good deal of money of public projects, but we make sure the money is there beforehand, or we make sure it’s there to pay it back.
And while I think I have a pretty good grasp of your point Scott, I’d argue that Judd’s view is actually macro too. The micro view is, “these homes don’t have many kids and therefore won’t be such a burden of the school system.” Any discussions about overcrowding at Winnona is also micro. The macro view looks over the long term and says, “is it a durable model to keep allowing residential into the city without a way of also increasing commercial?” Because right now it seems like commercial (like those of College Ave) want nothing to do with us, while many more residents want to become a part of the city.
So if we decide to take the non-strategic approach and just allow natural selection to decide, we could soon be up to 90% residential and sky-high property taxes that reflect that. I see your point that if we start judging applicants based on how many kids are in these homes (micro view) that we risk a self-selection nightmare, but I’m not sure that’s what Judd is saying. I think he’d just be more comfortable if the city had a plan in place…if they can’t get large-scale annexation passed, and we’re uncomfortable with the current residential tax burden, then what’s the plan?
More commercial within the existing city limits? Because while we’ve been quite successful in getting this stuff built, it doesn’t seem to decrease the tax burden, thanks to all the forces that work against it.
I was sure before you confirmed it, Bobsuruncle, that these 11 homes were fancy and at a higher price point. But they technically didn’t have a premium at the time of purchase, unless someone was putting that in their ear…I don’t like the idea of a few vocal and select people being able to ‘buy’ their house into Decatur, especially after they got their mortgage. Lower income homeowners probably WOULDN’T volunteer for an increase that size.
I am particularly annoyed at reading your post that people can pay tuition to a public school yet live outside the district. If that is really what is going on, then annexation should really be the last thing on the city’s plate.
Amen, grumble. And yes, “tuition kids” are part of City of Decatur schools. In fact, Oakhurst Elementary had to send some “tuition kids” back to Avondale last year because of overcrowding.
I’m not opposed to the concept of these folks being annexed if they want in. However, I am opposed to the piecemeal nature of this proposal, which, unfortunately, seems to be a fairly typical response for our City Commission, who seems to be afraid to make any tough political decisions on the annexation issue. Instead of annexing a block of residential at a time, we need to have a comprehensive approach, with the right mix of commercial/residential, to ensure that the annexation will be beneficial to our city government, and especially our school system. Annexing 16 houses here, 10 there, a dozen there will ensure that annexation will eventually be a financial negative for our city and our schools.
This is unlike what Decatur has done in the past such as our downtown plan from 20 years or so ago, which had a broad vision for what should be done and was implemented. It has served us well over the years. Our City Commissioners need to realize that we elected them to make tough decisions for our city. They need to make some tough decisions on the annexation issue, among other issues as well, instead of pawning it off on someone else or taking a piecemeal approach. If these homeowners want to be annexed, then I would support them if it were part of a more comprehensive annexation plan. But if not, then I hope they vote no.
I am amen cornering you, too, Lisa.
I agree with grumble on this. These individuals would get an automatic boost in equity, likely by as much as 25%. In effect, being able to profit greatly from such a move when the rest of us paid a premium up front to live in Decatur. I am curious to know if they would still support the move if annexation included that they each pay a large up front fee along with the annexation that corresponds to the immediate increase they get in equity. Say, if their value will go up 100k, they should be inclined to pay Decatur $50k up front, in essence splitting the difference on profit. This would be fair.
The difference amounts to a “membership fee” then? I think that a premium payment would be considered double taxation (which is nothing new in Georgia, but it still doesn’t quite sound right). And isn’t the ultimate value of your house only what someone is willing to pay for it?
People who want to be annexed should be given that opportunity–the fact that the rest of us moved here before they did has nothing to do with the urge to be a part of Decatur, and, of course, if all this high-brow country-clubbing gets any traction then they may want to just stay away.
“These individuals would get an automatic boost in equity, likely by as much as 25%.”
With a corresponding increase in taxes – there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
Should people who bought homes in Decatur 25 years ago pay higher taxes than recent homebuyers, because the longtime residents didn’t have to pay so much for their houses?
Should someone pay higher sales tax on a pair of jeans that they got on sale?
Someone please stop the madness.
Nicely illustrated, E. There is no dispute that financial considerations are a part of this discussion. But they do not constitute the whole of the discussion.
There are other types of capital besides financial (ideas, volunteerism, service) that new residents can impact, often in positive ways. Balance sheets are only one tool in the box.
Agreed. And people who TRULY WANT to be part of the city, and are essentially requesting that they take on our city’s taxes, are likely to contribute much value to the city in terms of human capital (e.g. volunteering, civil pride, etc.).
E, you’ve grasped the whole crux of the property assessment issue that is currently much discussed nearly everywhere.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that if these homes are annexed the equity goes up 25%. But, this is leaving out an important aspect of the economic calculation: when the owners bought their homes, they did not have 100% knowledge or assurance that the annexation would go through (assuming they bought them with the hope that they would be annexed in order to increase equity). So, the “investment”, if you will, had risk attached to it. The numbers crunchers could assign a “discount rate” to this “investment” to get a real value.
Now, if the market was working properly, the sales price of those homes accounted not only for the fact that there was a possibility for annexation (thereby nudging the price upwards on the hopes of increase in equity, but also nudging it downwards to account for the possibility of increased taxes), but also for the uncertainty in any annexation petition. Did this happen? I have no idea, but I do know that annexation has been on people’s lips in that neck of the ‘Woods for quite a while.
Moreover, any one of us certainly had the opportunity when we were buying our homes to take the calculated risk of carefully perusing the annexation guidelines, then buying a house adjacent to COD in the hopes of one day getting annexed, and thereby boosting equity. Anyone who is interested in understanding the economics should also understand these finer points of the free market.
BINGO – great post, Paula. Assuming a discount rate to cover their risk seems quite appropriate in this situation.
Now, allow me to continue kicking the hornet’s nest around and pose this question:
With apologies to Scott, I’m going to keep this purely in the realm of numbers.
Let’s assume that joining the city does increase their equity 25%. Does that then reduce the value of any of the homes for existing Decatur residents? In other words, other than the potential for some more expenses on CSD (a very legitimate concern, imo), does this move cause a loss of equity for current residents? Or is it simply a net gain for the Midway folks and neutral for the rest of us already in the city?
While the supply of homes in the city will increase a bit, it sounds like these are more at the high-end of the spectrum and wouldn’t likely put a damper on the area’s average home values. Any thoughts out there?
All if this stuff about whether it is fair or not for other homeowners is irrelevant to me. My only question is whether it is good for the city or not? I happen to think that piecemeal annexations is not good long term planning and will have negative consequences for our city, regardless of whether these homeowners will be good Decatur citizens or not. I’m sure they will be. But if we are going to annex it should part of a process of planning, not just because a block wants to join.
If they want to live in the City of Decatur, the easy solution is they sell their homes and buy one of the numerous houses currently on the Market within the city limits.
Unless there is a clear and obvious benefit to Decatur, they city doesn’t need to grow.
People make informed decisions when they buy their houses and the owners now seeking annexation chose not to buy in Decatur when they made their choice. It doesn’t matter if they were speculating on being annexed or not, they chose to not pay the additional costs (whatever that % factor may be) associated with living within the City Limits. Now, for whatever reason (quality of schools, to increase the value of their home, or whatever) they want to be within the City Limits. People all the time relocate from one area to another – they want a shorter commute, would like a bigger house for less cost, want a better quality of schools, etc. If you don’t like something about where you live and think some place would be better, there are plenty of choices available in the Country, just pack up and move – whether it’s 2,000 miles or 2 miles.
I agree. And the city is growing enough as it is within the city limits already established.
This parcel includes homes belonging to my wonderful neighbors on Midway Road, The Smiths, The Kings, The Michelsons (as in Renewal Design and Build). I wish them much luck because they are excellent neighbors, who take care of their beautiful homes, acre + lawns and their neighborhood. Their children are small- no threat to the current configuration of Winnona- or they are Waldorf school parents. I would love for them to stay right where they are and continue to make Decatur and Midway Road a better place to live, and add to the tax base for the City.
Er, their small children (or any figurative children), DO need to be counted for the current configuration of Winnona, esp. since we are going through a reconfiguration right now (hello?). And Waldorf parents might be Waldorf parents because their local Dekalb county school doesn’t make the grade, and might become CSD parents if they are annexed.
Also Heather B., as someone who lives within the City of Decatur but within yards of the City of Atlanta all the neighbhors on my block are wonderful, regardless of their zip code. I do have one COD neighbor in a rental who refuses to maintain his property or lawn and has at least four kids occupying the school system right now. Maybe the Michelsons can move next door to me and walk to every school from elementary straigh through to high school. Where I live in Decatur is awesome! The only place I would rather be ‘annexed in’ is Ansley or Inman.
Thanks Mike’s Opinion – I think you made my point better than I did.
This discussion, and tonight’s meeting, gave me a lot to think about re: this proposed Midway Woods annexation. On my website, I’ve attempted to put together some of my thoughts on this, to help you all get an idea of how I would think about these sorts of issues as a Commissioner. Thanks for your time, James.
I think some of what I’m writing must be showing up on my laptop only. Judd, to answer your question, I’ve previously written this (and variations of this):
“I’m all about considering financial impacts… I strongly support developing a big-picture annexation strategy to serve as a guide, the close involvement of the school system, and an honest appraisal of pluses and minuses. All I’m suggesting is that when one criteria becomes the sole criteria (especially when that criteria is money), the overall value of community suffers.”
I don’t know how I can be any more clear that I, like you, DM and others, feel that our annexation efforts need to be addressed in the context of a larger plan (and that such plan doesn’t appear to exist). And how many times do I have to say I support measuring potential financial impacts? Clearly I do.
My point is what it’s always been: If we’re going to address potential impacts (and obviously we should), financial impacts should not be the *only* one we consider. I get an overall sense here that no one wants to mess with less tangible, but equally valid, sources of value like human capital, enthusiasm, civic commitment or leadership simply because it’s more difficult to put a metric on them.
I disagree. I’m not against what’s being discussed here. I’m simply advocating for notching such efforts “up to eleven.”
(Finally, I was using “arbitrary” on the large tracts of land in reference to the fact that so much about their long-term use and development status is often theoretical or speculative whereas, with a house or small collection of houses, it’s pretty clear.)
I feel the same way. No one replied to my original comment.
As I’ve said, I agree that it’s never good to boil everything down to finanacials. I think where I was getting a bit stuck was the GUARANTEE that all these other “sources of value” would come along with an annexation. You can guarantee that they have to pay taxes, but you can’t guarantee that they would offer any of the things listed above.
But, I guess if they took the effort to become a part of the city, then you can also reasonably assume that they would contribute some of these intangibles.
We all seem to agree a plan is the correct approach, so I apologize if I created any undue fuss.
There’s never any guarantees, DM, even when dealing with the financials. Annexing commercial areas with an eye towards redevelopment doesn’t mean such development will necessarily materialize. Nor do all types of housing produce the same volumes of school kids. We take leaps of faith to varying degrees on all this stuff.
With all impacts, we take what we know and what we can hopefully predict with some level of accuracy and we apply it to the things we value. If we’re only concerned with how much money newcomers will give or take from us, then the current discourse should prove to be exactly what we need.
I think what they mostly want is to be able to put CSD in their MLS listing when they sell and Scott just wants to grow the city at any cost. DM is is just being his useful thoughtful self.
And David, in the contrarian role he was born to play, revels in one-liners with no coherent position or supporting evidence of their own…
I guess we all have our role…
I suppose nobody on the north side of Decatur clamoring to be annexed isn’t supporting evidence of anything. Perhaps.
I would like to support the idea of what Scott is saying. Governments began using fiscal impact studies decades ago to assess the financial implications of proposed future developments in their jurisdictions. These models obviously show that residential can be a “drain” on resourses, whereas commercial additions are a “net positive.” The proliferation of these types of analyses coincided with the great spread of single land use sprawl in the suburbs. Places like Gwinnett sold their soul to the strip mall because on paper each one looked like a winner for the county. Now, decades later, they are having to deal with the aftermath. See the Gwinnett Place Mall area or the Hwy. 78 corridor. What’s happened? Those areas are past their prime and now actually dragging down the land values of everything around them, including the nearby (segregated) residential neighborhoods. BTW – an emerging amount of evidence points to the fact that mixed-use development will actually retain and increase its value over time.
The point is that a more holistic, forward-looking approach must be taken. I agree that we need a comprehensive plan to help assess all anexations. How do we account for the intangibles and measure that against the financial? I don’t know, but we’ve got some sharp folks posting here and I’d be willing to be part of the conversation in figuring that one out. Until then, the city should have a plan for the amount of residential that makes sense in the context of the rest of our community. How much residential should we have within our four square miles? And if we expand our borders, what can we take on that won’t “drain” us? Does the city have a “rule of thumb” for what a single-family (vs. multifamily) home adds in terms of necessary services? (other counties/cities do). How much commercial is necessary to off-set the residential addition? How can we account for the intangibles that the folks in those homes add? These are all questions we need to be asking each time annexation comes up.
Also there’s always the very real idea that commercial property owners do not want to be annexed, and, therefore, pay higher taxes, and face the possibility of going under because of a higher overhead.
The residential part of an annex wants the schools and services of good city, but I’d bet the commercial part does not want or need the city’s services.
So, DM – what happened on this last night? Did you hear anything?
Oh… wait… todaaaay is Tuesday! Boy.. I need another coffee.. somehow I just time warped myself into Wednesday!
No, you’re on target Mr. Fixit. The commission mtg was last night. Unfortunately I wasn’t there and didn’t record it. However, it sounds like Dave over at InDecatur was and he reported that a bunch of people spoke in favor of the annexation and none spoke in opposition.
I don’t think any action was taken as it wasn’t an item on the agenda. Not sure if any commissioners gave an opinion.
I showed up a little late, but I didn’t hear any commissioners express an opinion. Everyone I heard speak was a Midway resident. One expressed some concern about creeping annexation as a new set of neighbors would become adjacent to the city limits. But mostly the speakers were Midway resident who had signed the petition speaking in favor. One speaker said they were interested in the schools first, and city services second.
There was no mention of a process going forward, such as consulting CSD, or questions that needed to be answered. The decision will be made in two weeks, when there will be another chance for public comment prior to the vote.
Boy… I reaaally was double confused then. Forget the coffee… I guess I just need to stop drinking at work.. particularly early in the mornings.
Last night’s Commission Meeting included a public hearing on the possible annexation of some Midway Rd. properties. The vote will occur at the next meeting. Usually the vote comes during the meeting after the public hearing, but the Planning Commission has not had a chance to review it and the timing did not work out for publication in The Champion (official county publication). There has to be 50 days of public notice before a vote can be taken. There was not comment from the Commissioners as we were not taking any action on the request at the meeting. City Merriss stated during the meeting that CSD had been notified of the annexation request, but there had been no response.
As a matter of course, the Commission accepts annexation requests, but that does not mean the Commission will vote in favor of that request. I believe the sentiment is that if someone wishes to request annexation, the Commission ought to at least study the request. Also, the City Manager has been sending notices of these annexation requests to CSD for a while now.
As an aside, it was kind of sad that there was no one at the Budget Hearing. The budget is the main document under which the City conducts its business, sets policy into action and accounts for the use of taxpayer money – and no one came….
Watch the budget complainers come out of the woodwork after the fact. There is also an annual budget focus and information group conducted by Andrea Arnold every February/March, but hardly anyone shows up for those either.
Fred: There seems to be a bit of a “he said, she said” regarding notification of CSD regarding these small annexations. I’ve heard from several people that that doesn’t happen (I haven’t inquired about the present Midway case).
Given that these annexations are mainly about CSD and that’s where the real material impact will be felt (through enrollment and the financial loss they bring to CSD), my suggestion would be that the commission request CSD to report formally before the vote and have a representative present to answer your questions the night of the vote.
Commissioner Boykin,
Some of us have lives outside of worrying about the city budget. We have jobs, kids to feed, t-ball games to attend, and older parents to worry about.
Not all of us have time to go to the city commission meetings and monitor the budget process. I agree with you that it is probably the most important thing that you guys do, and hope that there are citizens out there who have the time to participate.
I’m not certain that your calling us out and calling us “sad” for not attending is going to increase participation at all. And it is maybe not a good idea for a politician running for re-election this year to do so either. I hear that there are a couple of people who live on your side of town who are looking to get more involved in the process and maybe even run for office in the position that you hold. Should be interesting to watch.
Sam, there is plenty of notice given for the public hearings. Decatur is pretty unique in the level of involvement that citizens can have in their government. It is your (and my) opportunity to play a part in our government. I don’t think it was out of line for Fred to be disappointed in the turnout. If you think he called you out, so be it.
You seem to imply that someone who might run against him would have acted differently. I would think and expect anyone in his place to have expressed the same feelings. If they didn’t, then we have the wrong person in that seat.
Not only does the city need to consider the current and short-term impact, but also the long term effect that adding these homes could potentially bring. These are 11 homes with 6 children that may or may not be attending CSD in the next 5 years or so. People move, have more children, etc and things change. Home buyers (including us 4 years ago) are attracted to Decatur as we all know because of the schools. After annexation, some of the homes without children now could be sold to families with children who want to live in the City. So, these 6 children could become 22 over time, assuming 2 children per household.
I also know some of these homeowners and indeed, they are great people. But we have to draw a line somewhere, and plan carefully, considering all scenarios.
Someone else here posted that some of these families may have purchased their homes hoping to be annexed in to Decatur in the future. To add to that, it mau be that they bought these particular homes because they were new construction and affordable (compared to the new construction within the City Limits). So there was some strategy, and yes, a little calculated risk going on if that is the case.
Understandably, this strategy bothers some of us who have made sacrifices (financially, living space, having an old home that always needs work, etc) to buy within the past few years or so in the existing City limits. It’s like the idea that there are tuition-paying students in the crowded schools–it just doesn’t seem “fair.”
As a parent of a rising 1st grader and another child who will be at CSD in two years, I am greatly concerned about the number of children in our schools. Despite what I feel about people’s strategies to get into CSD, annexing ANY new residential property, whether one household or 11, does not seem to be a sound decision to me at all. CSD needs to get the current situation under control (and they are on their way and seem quite capable of doing so)before the City annexes any more homes, period.
Good schools, particularly in Georgia, attract people to neighborhoods. If a city is known for its good schools then it should be aware of, and prepared for, an influx of students–every year. It would, in fact, be a good thing if all school-aged children could get the same education our kids get here in Decatur (if only we could somehow make Dekalb county schools better…). A good school district also has to grow, and at times become crowded–new children born every day, in and out of Decatur, that may go to our schools or not. Growing up in Florida and attending three large schools, I became used to trailers–our euphemism was “portables”, and the best schools had the most portables, which means the school district cared about having at least temporary room for all students.
Considering both the economic and educational impact of annexation, it does not seem logical to deny nearby neighbors, because of the CSD, the chance to be a part of Decatur in the same way it would not seem logical to put a hold on new home construction and sales already within the city limits.
W: I don’t know if you’ve been following the goings-on with CSD of late, but they are currently facing a very big (and expensive) challenge of accommodating significant growth in enrollment from organic growth within the city. We have a small school system, so these fluctuations up and down are more momentous. CSD is also under increasing budgetary constraints.
Home sales are part of the organic growth — older couple moves out, young family moves in. I can’t see how it is logical to artificially add to that organic growth and thereby exacerbate the stress on CSD. Educational impact.
And what do you understand to be the economic impact? Each small annexation is a financial loss to CSD, given that they are generally motivated by a desire to enter children into CSD. (That’s clear in the cases of Midway, Derrydown, McKinnon, Willow.) The City Commission says repeatedly that it doesn’t want to raise taxes or cut services. I believe them, but requesting a formal reply from CSD on the impact would give them the information they need to do what they say they want to do.
Yes I have been following the CSD of late–I have two kids in CSD, and the first part of my post addressed the fact that good schools will grow with added enrollment–that just seems like a logical development to me. The school system here has facilities available, the 5th Ave. building (which they appear to be getting ready to put to use), the Rec Center, Westchester–there are possibilities which, like I said in my other post, a school district should be prepared to consider. The city will at some point have to raise taxes–oh no, I said it–if it wants its schools and services to keep up with demand, the small community status quo will only handle so much growth, that is, unless the people who live here now decide that no one else can move or build here, ever. Now that doesn’t seem very likely, but it sure sounds like an unspoken (unwritten) theme here at DM. It’s the curse of small, affluent town exclusivity.
The euphemistic use of “organic” and “artificial” is dodgy in that what’s the difference between building new houses and selling within the city limits and annexing nearby houses? Either way you are adding houses, people, school-aged children, and taxes. They will all pay their taxes, hopefully, so I don’t see the difference between supposed organic growth and artificial growth.
Just about everyone who moved to Decatur was motivated to do so because of CSD, so I don’t think annexation would be a greater financial loss to CSD then when an older couple moves out and young couple with children move in, it seems the same to me. Decatur seems to want growth without the pains that come with it, which is both natural and unrealistic–like the idea of having a great growing school district and restricting an increase in taxes. And people without kids here in Decatur may just have to move to Avondale if their taxes go up too much and they are paying for other families’ children to be educated.
That’s a really interesting point, WG — a kid added from inside our borders and one added from outside is the same when viewed — as everyone seems to be doing — as a “negative asset.”
Perhaps in addition to the annexation views being presented here, we could require people already living in Decatur to file an application with City Commission prior to bearing a child. After all, what right do they have to drain our educational resources without our say-so? (Oh, dang, I’m one of those people. Scratch that idea…)
It’s kind of backwards that you scorn “small town affluence” in the same breath that you promote raising taxes.
Gentrification is a bitch, but I’ve yet to see anyone find a solution to it that does more than just slow it’s effects. And in my experience, what adds the most fuel to the gentrifying fire has to do with pushing out poorer residents with high sales tax. In comparison to THAT problem, not accepting property to be annexed seems secondary to me when accusing others of “exclusivity.”
So, who gets to play the morality card? Those concerned with raising existing resident’s taxes or those who don’t want to discriminate about annexation?
DM, the whole quote was, “It’s the curse of small, affluent town exclusivity.” It’s not scorn of an affluent town. If a city has to raise taxes to keep its services in pace with the demand then it is going to, bottom line.
There is no mention of driving people out, that’s deflecting the discussion–there is in my posts only the reasons for people wanting to be in Decatur (whether they move here, build a house here, or request annexation) and the observation that it seems a lot of Decaturites here on DM are trying find excuses and euphemisms for their inclusion and others exclusion. That is all, check please!
Then maybe I misunderstood your initial criticism, which I thought was that people’s concern about annexation was really just about “exclusivity” and nothing else.
By pointing out what raising taxes inadvertently does, namely push out poorer populations, I was merely pointing out that exclusivity isn’t the only motivator. That’s all.
Or we can shut our borders, build a giant wall and exile all the building contractors and real estate agents, uh? A lot of the discussion here seems to center around the time frame in which people move here–if I’m here now don’t raise my taxes, but keep the great schools, don’t let anyone else in now that I’m here and do not undervalue my house!
W., you are conflating these two concepts of growth. There is a huge difference between so-called “organic” growth and “artificial” growth. Organic growth, or new families who buy into the existing city limits and people who already live here having more children is expected with good schools, yes, and can be planned for. Artificial growth, or the city annexing in new residential property, especially when the schools are busting at the seams trying to accommodate everyone within the city limits as they are now, has consequences that can be unforeseen. Like others posting here have stated, if the city annexes a few houses here, a few houses there, another dozen now, it will add up, and this is going to make the challenge of growth exponentially worse. Growing the city to support its citizens and improve the infrastructure around it (ie, annexing commercial properties like the unsightly strips of E. College and E. Ponce which are gateways to the city) and add to the tax base is a smart idea, though it may not happen or be well-accepted among the properties being annexed. Yes, Decatur wants to grow, and yes, it will accept some growing pains. But adding to the pains by adding more households is not smart and it’s not what the city seems to want or need in order to experience and support growth.
It’s not a matter of small, affluent town exclusivity. It’s a matter of smart growth. Why should the city keep granting requests from homes just outside the city limits to be annexed, when it does not make sense, financially or in terms of having enough physical space to put these children in our schools? Yes, we have options of utilizing Fifth Avenue and Westchester, but as was pointed out, this will come with a $10 million price tag and take two years to complete, and that’s for Fifth Avenue alone.
I think that the Commission should put a temporary hold on considering any new residential annexations until CSD gets a handle on what is already going on within the city limits of new families moving in and new children being born. If the people just outside the city limits like CSD and this wonderful city so much, then they should move within the limits like the rest of us did.
I can honestly say this because we used to live in a neighborhood just outside the city limits, close enough to walk to the square and enjoy city parks and services. There was talk about our neighborhood being annexed, which we supported and hoped for, but we chose to go ahead and move within the city limits rather than take our chances with a daughter who would be entering Kindergarten in 3 years in an unacceptable school in unincorporated Dekalb County.
If we do have to pay more taxes to support our city, then let it be because of this “within the city limits” growth rather than because the city keeps adding new residential property. It’s not smart right now, and will continue to set a precedent that we cannot afford to maintain.
And we need to remember we have city commissioners on here supporting this type of “artificial” unplanned growth without really offering much of a reasoning as to why these 11 houses benefit the city. That’s very scary and bespeaks our need for a comprehensive growth plan for Decatur outside of downtown
Ok, so under this interpretation of organic and artificial growth, we should enact a freeze on new construction within the city limits? Annexing houses just outside the city limits seems to be the same as building new buildings within the city limits–the new buildings will be occupied by families that will utilize the city’s services the same way the annexed houses will.
My point is that organic growth is a warm-fuzzy term for inclusion and artificial growth is cold-prickly term for exclusion.
Yes, I think we should enact a freeze on the city limits, if only for residential. I am not sure to what new construction you are referring that would add families to the city limits. If you are talking about the condos, for example the pending development near Dairy Queen, usually these condos are occupied by empty nesters and single people. I do not see these as a concern as much as single family housing, and I do see adding a single family home here and there, and then nearly a dozen now as is being considered, as a serious concern. Really, any new construction should be looked at carefully and controlled tightly. And I think it is. But that is still different than annexing in new homes.
There is also the precedent that is being set, that “If you live just outside the city limits, well, just come on in!” And it’s not about “warm fuzzy inclusion” versus “cold prickly exclusion.” My point still is, why should the city continue to expand its limits to include more and more residences, with no end or limit in sight? When does it stop? Is there a plan for what the city limits will look like in ten years? It’s not a matter of being exclusive or having a country club mentality, its about smart growth and planning, and knowing what our small and quickly growing city can and cannot support.
“But that [new residential construction] is still different than annexing in new homes.”
And how is that different? in regard to people needing the city’s services.
My point still is, why should the city continue to expand its limits to include more and more residences, with no end or limit in sight? When does it stop?
—————–
You really think there is no practical limit to annexation, as if eventually Decatur will annex Avondale or even Stone Mountain? Obviously, the City will have a tough time annexing any area in which the residents don’t want to be annexed. Annexing a small section along Midway Road in which the residents strongly favor annexation doesn’t exacly open the door to annexing every adjacent area.
W isn’t there a difference in the underlying property value of inside/outside the city. Organic growth already has incorporated this difference in the tax base, among other issues.
At what point should the property be reassesed for tax purposes? Should the new property value be available to the commissioners when making their decission? Should the school system know of the projected revenue when making its decision? Should the annexed property owners have a right to appeal the new asses value?
“Organic growth” includes only what is in the city limits, as I understand it–if new houses are annexed into the city limits then it seems they would not be considered outside, and therefore subject to the same assessments as the rest of us.
They should be reassessed after annexation, I should think.
I would hope that the assessment of the properties’ values would be available for the commissioners before their decision, that just makes sense.
Yes, the school system should have a projected revenue, makes sense to.
And, finally, no, the property owners who have been annexed are stuck with their assessments just like the rest of us.
Nice selective quote, dem. Did you read the very next sentence, which was, “Is there a plan for what the city limits will look like in ten years? ” That is my concern: is there a plan?
Does the city have limits on what will continue to be annexed? And yes, we are talking about “only” a dozen homes on Midway. No, I do not think that City of Decatur will try to expand its boundaries to include Avondale–though there was talk at one point of Decatur annexing everything up to Avondale City limits. Did you look at the maps of the proposed annexations from late last year? We are talking huge tracts of land, many homes, and lots of new families. And once those homes are City of Decatur, they will be more appealing to people with children and as they are sold, the neighborhoods’ demographics would undoubtedly change.
City of Decatur is a desirable place to live. Once some houses are annexed at its limits, it does indeed open the door for newly contiguous homes to ask to be annexed in as well. Again, if the city sets a precedent that homes adjacent to the limits can request annexation and that annexation is granted time and again, we will see more requests. In fact, as H. Smith indicated, some of the families on Midway may have in fact bought their homes hoping for annexation, knowing it was a possibility.
Emerging campaign issue (the broader question, not just Midway/McKinnon)? Relevant to both city commission and school board.
I think what all this talk is forgetting is that the issue of these 11 houses is much broader than 11 homeowners. I don’t care if they are nice. I don’t care how much their houses cost. They bought homes outside our city limits and that is not my problem. This conversation more than anything has convinced me that these 11 homeowners should not have their petition reviewed until WE get a good solid bit of urban planning from our city manager and commissioners. I personally do not want this issue on the table until there is a long term growth plan in place. That’s not fair to those of us who already live here.
Excellent point, NB, but – regarding your earlier reply to Oakhurst Mom – I’m not sure you’re accurately stating the City Commissioners’ positions.
An aspiring Commissioner, James Radford, seems to support the request, but I didn’t read Commissioner Boykin’s comment as (necessarily) supporting it: “As a matter of course, the Commission accepts annexation requests, but that does not mean the Commission will vote in favor of that request.”
JR and FB: Please correct this impression if I’ve misread your comments.
No, you are probably right. I get a little dogmatic and overstate some on occasion. I guess I am just worried about the dangers of unplanned growth. Atlanta is literally a textbook study (take a few grad-level urban planning courses and see if you emerge without paranoia and not a little shame!!) & we need to be careful not to fall into those traps. I wasn’t at the commission meeting and I got a little worried and full of assumptions after hearing a bit about the commissioners’ responses.
So what you, nellie, care about is fairness? If people pay their share of taxes and CSD is going to expand anyway, what exactly is unfair about annexing our neighbors just to south of us?
Not at all what I said- what is unfair to current Decatur residents is the commission starting piecemeal annexations without a comprehensive plan for intelligent growth.
[Throws hands up in exasperation] So ignorance of the future and the consequences of present decisions are unfair!? Oh god, now what do I do?
It is all about Numbers
There are 11 parcels (9 houses [6 kids]) that want to be annexed into “City of Decatur”.
From the 11 parcels I get 38,705 in school taxes for the “city of decatur” they would have to pay if annexed.
The tuition for 1 student living in “city of Decatur” is 9300.
9300*6 (kids)=55800.
55800 minus 30800 equals 25000.
The “city of Decatur” would have to come up with an extra 25000 to cover the 6 kids that would be annexed into the “city of Decatur”.
The parcels that are up for annexation are:
2502-2562 midway road
2541 McKinnonn Road
15 215 02 001 (0 Midway Road)
15 215 02 030 (0 Midway Road)
Oh boy, which numbers are we supposed to look at? I get 17095 from the difference between 55800 and 38705–the school taxes previously stated. I’m slightly confused now, you know, Numberwise.
Either way, Decatur grows, then our taxes grow too.
I guess I did the math wrong.
Let try this again.
There are 11 parcels (9 houses [6 kids]) that want to be annexed into “City of Decatur”.
From the 11 parcels I get 30800 in school taxes for the “city of decatur” they would have to pay if annexed.
The tuition for 1 student living in “city of Decatur” is 9300.
9300*6 (kids)=55800.
55800 minus 30800 equals 25000.
The “city of Decatur” would have to come up with an extra 25000 to cover the 6 kids that would be annexed into the “city of Decatur”.
———————
If you want to do the numbers just go to the dekalb’s appraisal site and look at each parcel’s value for the property. With the values of each parcel you can get the spread sheet that City of Decatur provides and do your own calculations.
The parcels that are up for annexation are:
2502-2562 midway road
2541 McKinnonn Road
15 215 02 001 (0 Midway Road)
15 215 02 030 (0 Midway Road)
————–
They could aways pay tuition which is: 6080×6=36480 (out of city tuition).
I have good friends who tried to get into Decatur as tuition students. According to them, CSD Central Office said that Decatur is no longer taking tuition students in K-5. K-5 is completely full at all grade levels.
If k-5 is full, why would “city of Decatur” want to annex?
Joey (and others): Not positive about this, but I think looking at existing cost-per-student alone in determining potential CSD costs and effects of annexation may be a little misleading. Because of upper limits on class size, sometimes adding only one or two students can require creation of a new class at a grade level and all the associated expenses (new space, new teacher, etc.). When CSD finds itself in that position, they can turn down non-residential (tuition) students, but I think they would have to figure out a way to accommodate residential students. There may be some flexibility, but they probably don’t have much wiggle room.
Which circles us right back to Scott’s comments (and my support) about the pitfalls of looking at this only and entirely through a fiscal impact model. The types of analyses that joey is doing can be useful to a point but aren’t not in anyway precise.
GAK: I don’t share your perspective. To me, the lack of precision in an analysis is not necessarily an argument for discounting the value of the analysis. Assuming the basic approach is valid, it’s an argument for seeing if we can increase the precision and improve the analysis. My intent was to note that additional costs may come into play and that fiscal impact on CSD may be greater than suggested. In previous considerations of larger annexations, City staff (and Commissioners, I believe) have already indicated that they want to make potential impact on the school system one part of their discussions.
Sorry to confuse – I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be done. Only wanted to point out, similar to what Scott was saying, that we need to find all the right metrics and that fiscal impact, while very important is a) not necessarily precise in and of itself, and b) only part of the “equation.”
To quote Raison Debt – I didn’t read Commissioner Boykin’s comment as (necessarily) supporting it: “As a matter of course, the Commission accepts annexation requests, but that does not mean the Commission will vote in favor of that request.”
You’re correct – just because the city accepts a petition doesn’t guarantee that the petitioner(s) will be annexed in. It just means the city will review the petition and vote on it.
Can anyone confirm that the Planning Commission discussion of this will be tonight at 7:30? It’s not mentioned on their agenda:
http://www.decatur-ga.com/client_resources/planning%20commission/2009/pcagenda%20060909.pdf
I can’t go, and I assume the audience is typically pretty thin, but I’d be interested to hear if it’s discssed, and if so what’s said and what questions are raised. (Such as Joey’s in his reply to Mr Fixit, perhaps.)